How Albert Einstein Killed Physics

Einstein "borrowed" the constant-speed-of-light falsehood from the nonexistent ether and convinced the world that it is an absolute non-negotiable. The falsehood became a Procrustean bed to which physics was made to fit:

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"At a time when other scientists believed that the speed of light was variable, Einstein took it as a fixed limit of nature and made it the absolute non-negotiable around which all other variables and parameters enfolded."
https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/0...ng-relativity/

The texts below suggest that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), fundamental physics, entirely predicated on Einstein's constant-speed-of-light falsehood, is long dead (exists as a farce or ideology):

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-S.../dp/0738205257

Physicists know that the speed of light is variable and even try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. Today's "physics" is entirely predicated on Einstein's false constancy and will collapse without it. In this regard telling the truth is suicidal:

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...t-speed-slowed

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Nowadays the death of physics is so obvious that it has even entered popular cultu

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0

Peter Woit: "...as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Peter Woit: "There's a very real danger...that we will in our lifetimes see the end of fundamental physics as a human endeavor" http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8392

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Looks like Chris Anderson was right when he proclaimed the end of theory." https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11961

Peter Woit: "This all of a sudden made things clear: what is going on is "theatrical physics", not "theoretical physics"." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9691

Neil Turok: "The extensions of the standard model, like grand unified theories, they were supposed to simplify it. But in fact they made it more complicated. The number of parameters in the standard model is about 18. The number in grand unified theories is typically 100. In super-symmetric theories, the minimum is 120. And as you may have heard, string theory seems to predict 10 to the power of 1,000 different possible laws of physics. It’s called the multiverse. It’s the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...odern-physics/

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

About 15-20 years ago, Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo informed the scientific community that Einstein's special relativity is the root of all the evil:

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Special relativity can only be "the root of all the evil" if a postulate is false (logic forbids the combination "true postulates, evil theory"), and Smolin and Magueijo informed the scientific community about the false postulate as well:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate." http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html

A recent reminder:

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It’s time the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

So the scientific community has known the truth about Einstein and his relativity theory for at least 15-20 years. No reaction of course - in post-truth science truth is immaterial. Still many Einsteinians silently leave Einstein's sinking ship and promptly become experts in quantum mechanics, AI, philosophy, consciousness, biology, meaning of life, climate science, COVID-19, anything:

https://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/...2108_dBrrH.png

If there is a next (resurrected, Einstein-free) version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter)".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev